I Need Help Fellow Sanderson Fanatics!

[Kaladin al'Thor]

So hi, this is my first new topic that I have posted. I'm a huge Brandon Sanderson fan. I have read everything that he has released and will continue to do so until I am an old man. I have gotten at least 20 different people into Brandon's work so far. I basically recoommend him to everyone I talk to regularly. My strategy is to talk a lot about his books and slowly get them to agree to red one of them. I start them off with Mistborn and move them on to The Stormlight Archive (It's a lot harder to get people to commit to a 1000 page book without being a fan). So recently, I got a new job and I have been working my strategy on the guy who sits next to me. I got him to start Mistborn. This is what is baffling me, he didnt love it and he thinks that Brandon is a bad writer. Not describing enough of the world, not cring about the characters, he named several other things. This is just crazy to me!!! Mistborn was amazing! It got Harriet to have him finish WoT! So this guy, he is way way way smarter than I am. He talks about a lot of things that are over my head, he's like a literary critic! So what can I do to defend my favorite author? What can I tell him about the improvements Brandon has made as a writer to get him to read Way of Kings? I'm just not smart enough to debate with him, i need help! Thanks for anyone who takes the time to read my pointless post.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Kaladin al'Thor

[Aleksiel]

As baffling as it sounds, there will be people who don't share your love for certain books for people have different preferences.

 

Brandon uses Orwelian prose (link is to a video where he explains it) that has five rules:

 

1. Never use a metaphor, similie or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active..
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

And the sixth is it's fine to break all of the above in certain situations.

 

May be your colleague isn't accustomed or simply does not enjoy this type of prose, but it in no way means Brandon (or any author with this writing style) is a bad writer. So he should really reconsider and realize the difference between not liking a book and a book being poorly written.

 

Mistborn is meant to be fast-paced, so of course it doesn't include large sections of descriptions, that's for epic fantasy. Although I can't say even WoK or WoR have long passages like Wheel of Time for example.

 

Can you elaborate on what your colleague didn't like? I don't know if you can make anyone like a book they didn't, though. He could just try another one by Brandon, something more to his taste. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by Aleksiel

[Kaladin al'Thor]

It wasn't even so much that he thought the book was bad, he said the story is mildly entertaining. But he said he constantly found things that he generally flags a bad author. The eye tatoos being described 5 times in ten minutes of reading at the beginning was one thing I rememeber him saying. There were others, i dont rememeber all of them. Not really caring about the characters. Them being "cartoonish".  Constantly explaining what the characters were thinking  instead of leaving him to come to that conclusion on his own by their actions was another. umm he also said that the characters come to conclusions that don't make sense. Like he understands how the readers would come to the conclusion but not the characters in the books. He said lots of things, like I said, he is a lot smarter than me so I just didnt know what to say. I was just baffled. I understand that not everyone will like the books I like, but to say he is a bad writer.. it caught me off guard. I thnk Brandon is about as good as you can get!

[Aleksiel]

Hmm, Brandon is all for showing instead of telling, so I don't know where your colleague's argument is coming from. If he found the characters unsympathetic, that's mainly personal preference I suppose.  Just because he already got something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be described again. In fact, important things should be repeated so that the majority of readers remember. 

 

Can you give an example of a decision that didn't make sense in-world? Things like that can be argued and reasoned.

 

What kind of person is your colleague? There are some people you can't get a meaningful discussion with. Does he speak this way of other authors and books? I know a person who just loves to hate on numerous novels. Give him anything to read and he'll only enjoy bashing it and repeating it apart. He too can make it sound very sophisticated and reasonable, but in the end he's just a very unpleasant person who doesn't appreciate literature and thinks himself a great critic for not liking a single book and openly hating on many. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by Aleksiel

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

The line between "bad book" and "book you don't personally like" is easy to blur. I'm sure I do it on some occasions, because it's easy to let personal likes and dislikes color your opinion of a work. Take Victoria Schwab's Vicious, for example. It's very well written, set in a world with a dark and twisted mythos, peopled by fully-realized characters who drive the story with their surprising choices.

And I hate it.

There's a lot right with it, technically, but the story itself pushes a lot of my buttons as a reader. It jumps back and forth between the past and present. It stars two unlikeable villain protagonists, pitted against each other over a grudge that could have been avoided if they just behaved like civilized humans. The use of foul language and drug content is constant to the point where it feels gratuitous. The only religious character is irredeemably evil and the worse of the two protagonists. And an important plot point rests on a newspaper article that is far, far too sentimental to pass for real journalism, and the clue is buried in a photograph the paper would never have published what with consent laws the way they are.

However, there are many readers who loved that book. Maybe they see my negatives as positives, or maybe the book just didn't push any of their buttons. That's fine. I won't deny that Schwab is a good writer; and I won't say that the marks I counted against her make her a bad one. (But I will keep harping on that article. No self-respecting journalist would write that and no editor worth his pay would publish it.) Am I tempted to call her a bad writer? I was. But I had to consciously separate the good in her work from the bad.

Just because your friend thinks Sanderson is a bad writer doesn't make him right. It just means he doesn't like Sanderson, or something about his writing pushes his buttons, or what have you. If you take Sanderson at a technical level, he is a good writer. He's just not for every reader.

Edited March 18, 2015 by TwiLyghtSansSparkles

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

About 20 people introduced? Way to spread the word!

Edited March 17, 2015 by Mckeedee123

[Sirce Luckwielder he/him]

About 20 people introduced? Way to spread the word!

For real! I have a grand total of two people.

You could try explaining Hoid and the Cosmere without being too spoilery. Show how intricate and detailed he is in his worldbuilding. Another thing to being to his attention, is that Brandon was able to write the third book before the first was published. Make sure that he reads the entire trilogy before he makes a real judgement. We all know that the end of the third book is in s much different place than how you would have thought at the end of the first. If he refuses to read the rest of the trilogy, his argument is invalid. He is basically judging a book by its cover, since one novel doesn't even come close to scratching the surface of all that Sanderson has done.

[Curiosity he/him]

I'm going to do a little role-play here. Let's say I put myself in your co-worker's shoes for a minute. From your post and the fact that you've convinced 20 (!) people to read Brandon's work, I'm guessing that you're a super-enthusiastic person. And it sounds like you're determined and persistent. Based on these assumptions this is how I might react. It might not be the reasoning for how he acts. It's very possible that I'm wrong. 

 

But indulge me for a moment. Begin roleplay:

 

I like to make my own decisions. Call me a non-conformist. I have someone that I have just met super enthusiastically suggesting a book to me. I'm skeptical about those books. (Hey, anyone who is super enthusiastic is a little bit suspect.) They keep recommending the books to me. The continued, constant pressure is a bit annoying, making me even more reluctant to try them. Eventually, I just want the pressure to stop.

 

So I agree to try the books. 

 

I want to "win" the argument, stay convinced that I actually don't want to read the books. So, even if the books are genuinely good, I will convince myself that they aren't good.

 

(We humans are remarkably good at convincing ourselves of the stupidest things.)

 

When pressed, even if I don't have any actual evidence, I can make stuff up (possibly with multisyllabic words) in order to make myself seem more intellectually justified. I can list the things that the author does and say that I don't like them, even if that isn't necessarily true. However, I make it true, because I want to win the argument and have the enthusiasm level turned down for a little bit. 

 

End roleplay. 

 

I went through phases like this with tomatoes and the fact that 0.999999...=1 (I was against both, until people stopped arguing against me). The best way to get me to agree with you, or even give me a chance at liking the books, is to back down and stop recommending those books. Yes, it seems crazy, but I know that with a person who I have only known for a few weeks, I don't completely trust their opinions. You may be arguing your feelings from the bottom of your heart, but if I see solid evidence for my position, I will hold it up and say "No thank you" with it. 

 

CAVEAT!

 

He may genuinely not like Brandon's books. It's a possibility. Twylight has an excellent point. He may be very much into a different writing style. However, I did want to offer up another possibility. 

 

And if it doesn't work out in the end, just avoid pointless arguing and don't let it get in the way of a good friendship. Don't let your relationship turn into a YouTube comment debate over Brandon Sanderson. Because, believe it or not, there are things more important than an author.   (Even if his books are storming good.)

[Sirce Luckwielder he/him]

Curiousity, that was fantastic. Did you take a psychology course at all, or are you just good with people?

[Curiosity he/him]

Curiousity, that was fantastic. Did you take a psychology course at all, or are you just good with people?

 

I haven't taken any courses, and I'm not particularly good with people. I just notice patterns with myself and then extrapolate them to other people. (Science of experience, you might call it? It's probably what Aristotle did, and he just wrote it down, so everyone thought he was a genius.) The few people that I know deeply (they cover a variety of personalities) are templates for this kind of system building as well. I will, however, tell you that the system is based on Biblical principles. It's what I've grown up with, and it's worked very well. Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with most of traditional psychology, though Myers-Briggs types fascinate me. You can also say that I'm living proof that homeschoolers aren't in desperate need of socialization. 

 

I was basically describing exactly what I would have thought four or five years ago. It's still too easy to think that way sometimes.

[Sirce Luckwielder he/him]

...

I know how you feel. I am an introvert and have very few true friends with only slightly more "acquaintances," but I think that I am pretty good at reading people based on my own life and just watching people over the years. I did take a psychology class in high school, but that onky gave evidence to what is mostly observational knowledge that anyone can have if they just listen and watch.

[Edgedancer he/him]

Hmm, Brandon is all for showing instead of telling, so I don't know where your colleague's argument is coming from. If he found the characters unsympathetic, that's mainly personal preference I suppose.  Just because he already got something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be described again. In fact, important things should be repeated so that the majority of readers remember.

Brandon does have a tendency to show us his character's train of thought. An example in the first Mistborn book that immediately springs to mind is

Vin hanging in the mist after Kelsier's death.

So maybe that's what he's talking about. Now, I would argue that this isn't simply tell and develops the characters but I have no clue what else he could mean with that.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

One of my best friends did the same thing to me. I finally got him to agree to read a Sanderson book. I wanted him to read Warbreaker but he insisted on Mistborn. After he was done he told me he really disliked it. He said he didn't like the magic system, thought the characters were a little unrealistic, and that the combat felt like a video game. He then said he wouldn't read anything else Sanderson wrote if that is considered his best (I tried arguing that I disagreed with that assessment but because the majority of the internet agrees I guess my argument is invalid...).

 

Point is, haters gonna hate. No, actually the point is that some people just don't like what you do. It happens.

 

 

You could try explaining Hoid and the Cosmere without being too spoilery. Show how intricate and detailed he is in his worldbuilding. Another thing to being to his attention, is that Brandon was able to write the third book before the first was published. Make sure that he reads the entire trilogy before he makes a real judgement. We all know that the end of the third book is in s much different place than how you would have thought at the end of the first. If he refuses to read the rest of the trilogy, his argument is invalid. He is basically judging a book by its cover, since one novel doesn't even come close to scratching the surface of all that Sanderson has done.

 

I would like to take an additional moment to say that I completely disagree with you. As many people, including Brandon himself, have said, Mistborn: The Final Empire is a stand-alone novel that happens to be the first novel in a trilogy. What does that mean (I know I was confused prior to reading)? It means that the novel is self-contained. It has a beginning, middle, and end. There is build-up to a major climax and resolution that resolves the problems the same book introduced. It means the novel is a complete story. It also means that an average Joe can pick up TFE, give it a read, and then pass judgement on whether they'd like to continue with the series/author. It was honestly an ingenious move by Sanderson, because it provided an out for those who didn't enjoy the style or the story.

 

In the event that someone is still confused, let us compare the first Mistborn to a first in a commonly known trilgoy, Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring. TFE establishes the characters and the plot, as any beginnings to a story should. For TFE, the plot is that there is a tyrranical racist that conquered the world, and the characters have to band together to overthrow him by killing him. By the end of the novel, that goal is accomplished, go team. FotR also establishes characters and the plot. For FotR, the plot is that there is a tyrranical racist who yearns to conquer the world (and destroy it), and the characters have to band together to stop him (via Ring in Mountain). Unlike TFE, the goal is not accomplished at the end of FotR, which is much more inline to the "generic" first book in a trilogy.

 

So all in all, I'm saying that your statement of him needing to read the next two (which are, at least in my opinion, worse) would be like saying someone who has read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone needs to read the rest of them. They really don't. Harry Potter 1 is completely self contained, and nothing from the other six novels is necessary to complete the story. You should read the rest of them only if you want to know what happens next. Same with Mistborn. You should only read Well of Ascension and Hero of Ages if you particularly care about what happens after TLR is overthrown.

 

So I wouldn't say his argument is invalid, because it's not. It's just unfrotunate.

[Sirce Luckwielder he/him]

I would like to take an additional moment to say that I completely disagree with you. As many people, including Brandon himself, have said, Mistborn: The Final Empire is a stand-alone novel that happens to be the first novel in a trilogy. What does that mean (I know I was confused prior to reading)? It means that the novel is self-contained. It has a beginning, middle, and end. There is build-up to a major climax and resolution that resolves the problems the same book introduced. It means the novel is a complete story. It also means that an average Joe can pick up TFE, give it a read, and then pass judgement on whether they'd like to continue with the series/author. It was honestly an ingenious move by Sanderson, because it provided an out for those who didn't enjoy the style or the story.

 

In the event that someone is still confused, let us compare the first Mistborn to a first in a commonly known trilgoy, Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring. TFE establishes the characters and the plot, as any beginnings to a story should. For TFE, the plot is that there is a tyrranical racist that conquered the world, and the characters have to band together to overthrow him by killing him. By the end of the novel, that goal is accomplished, go team. FotR also establishes characters and the plot. For FotR, the plot is that there is a tyrranical racist who yearns to conquer the world (and destroy it), and the characters have to band together to stop him (via Ring in Mountain). Unlike TFE, the goal is not accomplished at the end of FotR, which is much more inline to the "generic" first book in a trilogy.

 

So all in all, I'm saying that your statement of him needing to read the next two (which are, at least in my opinion, worse) would be like saying someone who has read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone needs to read the rest of them. They really don't. Harry Potter 1 is completely self contained, and nothing from the other six novels is necessary to complete the story. You should read the rest of them only if you want to know what happens next. Same with Mistborn. You should only read Well of Ascension and Hero of Ages if you particularly care about what happens after TLR is overthrown.

 

So I wouldn't say his argument is invalid, because it's not. It's just unfrotunate.

I guess that I made myself unclear. I was pretty critical and I should have toned it back and reread what I said before I posted. I do realize that The Final Empire was a stand-alone book. It was a great read and the story that it set forth did wrap up nicely. What I meant is that to really see where Sanderson shines is to look at when he completed the full trilogy. He is great in one book and even in his short stories, but I find so much more pleasure in the full series than just the first book. I really liked the end of The Final Empire, but I think that the series was even more amazing when I finished reading the third book. All of the things that seemed trivial in the first book (passing mentions of the Deepness and the Koloss, or all of the religions that Sazed offered) might make him not like the book, because they are not central to The Final Empire's plot. When you look at the end of The Hero of Ages though, all of that comes in and makes sense. Even though the story of The Final Empire was meant to be stand-alone, Sanderson still planned and set up for where the characters and story would be at the end.

When he says that Sanderson is a bad author, I don't think that he is seeing him at his greatest. By just judging him by one of his 20 or so books, he hasn't seen all that Brandon has to offer. With all of the stories that Brandon has, both face value and part of the Cosmere back-story, there is so much more that he is missing out on. I realize that if I didn't like a book, I would not necessarily want to read more, but seeing the passion of the people that like Sanderson's novels, I would give it another go. I realize that not all books are for all people, so maybe Sanderson just doesn't resonate with him. I know from my own experience, that some books by the same author can be totally disparate in how I view them. One example is Charles Dickens. I loved A Tale of Two Cities, but I cannot stand Great Expectations. I am glad that I at least gave him another shot, or I would not have been able to see the real gemstones that Dickens created.

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

Well, I would suggest you move him onto Way of Kings or Sixth of the Dusk. Stat.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

If he doesn't like the Cosmere books, high fantasy--even with all the ingenious spins Sanderson puts on it--might just not be his thing. I enjoy high fantasy, but it's not my favorite genre. Urban fantasy is what I really like, which might be why I walked past works like Elantris a dozen times but put Steelheart on hold at my library the second I read the synopsis. I did enjoy The Final Empire, but I didn't long for the sequel the way I longed for Firefight. I know this may come across as heresy to some....but maybe the Cosmere just isn't for him.

[Kaladin al'Thor]

Thanks for all of your responses! So he has finished Well and will be moving on to book 3 this weekend. He still thinks Brandon makes a lot of mistakes with his writing. When he finishes I am going to talk to him about what he didnt like and write down specifics so I can give you guys better details. You were right Curiosity, I am super enthusiastic about Brandon's books but I wasnt pestering him. But yea, I think maybe because of my enthusiasm he was let down because he expected more. I will get back to you guys after I talk to him after he finishes the series. At least he didnt just stop, maybe there is hope to get him to read WoK after all!

[king of nowhere]

I am also like curiosity in that if people are too enthusiastic in something I tend to be contrary, simply because I don't like excessive enthusiasm  (unless it's a very sweet girl doing it. exposure to excess female sweetness has on me the effect of a duraluminium rioting) and I don't like too strongly black and white opinions. I don't do it for spite, I just try to balance things.

 

Now, some more details; about the prose, I don't think anyone can criticize sanderson. one may not like it, but not say that he does bad things. Alas, some people don't always see the difference. BUt then, one criticism he makes can make sense: the fact that the characters are "cartoonish" and "unbelievable". That can easily be explained if he is more into "grim and dark" stuff. Those stories where everything is crapsack and even the heroes are not people you would want to hang around with. Some people think that is realistic, and sanderson's characters, which are more idealistic, may sound cartoonish and unbelievable to them. well, my own life experience says that at least the people I met are more like sanderson'ss characters (maybe I've been lucky, or maybe being introverted means that people who want to use you will find more difficult to get close to you and won't cnsider the effort worth making), so I found those realistic and I find the darker novels unbelievable - that, plus I feel like shouting "if you think people arereally like that, why haven't you suicided yet?!?". Plus, I tend to mistrust such people; those who think others are bad are more likely to not give a damnation about them.

Anyway, that could be a reason for ssome criticism.

 

EDIT: I'm thinking now that also the lack of swearing could contribute. while I know there  are people who are offended by it, let's be realistic, most people swear on occasions, and people from the criminal underworld or people who risk their lives often tend to swear a lot. So that could also contribute to generate a feeling of "unreality" in someone. I have no problems with sanderson, but i remember that "unrealistically low level of swearing" is one criticism I have on the lord of the ring, and in that boook is low enough that at times it challenges my suspension of disbelief.

and maybe also the low sex content could contribute. in a world like that of mistborn, rape should be a common everyday thing, people are too busy trying to stay alive to worry too much or do something about it; and in fact it is a common thing, it's just that we are told and not shown (i generally have no problems with depictions of rape or sex as llong as i get the impression that they support the story and they were not put there to be anvilicious or to be fanservice)

Edited March 19, 2015 by king of nowhere

[Draconis he/him]

I completely understand how you feel about your co-worker not seeing the brilliance that is Sanderson.  Look at the bigger picture.  You convinced 20 people to read Brandon's books, and they loved them. The 21st didn't.  That is more than a 95% conversion rate.  I'd call that a win. 

If we all had those kinds of numbers, we wouldn't be on 17th Shard.  We'd be in line to see WoK on IMAX.  Good work

[Sirce Luckwielder he/him]

EDIT: I'm thinking now that also the lack of swearing could contribute. while I know there are people who are offended by it, let's be realistic, most people swear on occasions, and people from the criminal underworld or people who risk their lives often tend to swear a lot. So that could also contribute to generate a feeling of "unreality" in someone. I have no problems with sanderson, but i remember that "unrealistically low level of swearing" is one criticism I have on the lord of the ring, and in that boook is low enough that at times it challenges my suspension of disbelief.

and maybe also the low sex content could contribute. in a world like that of mistborn, rape should be a common everyday thing, people are too busy trying to stay alive to worry too much or do something about it; and in fact it is a common thing, it's just that we are told and not shown (i generally have no problems with depictions of rape or sex as llong as i get the impression that they support the story and they were not put there to be anvilicious or to be fanservice)

Just to be clear, this is not an attack, that is not why I am here, I am just expressing my views and opinions of Sanderson.

Sanderson still has swearing, but it is tempered with the other world swears like "Rust and Ruin!" "Sparks!" or "Colors!" Personally, I like that he keeps the swearing minimal. Replacing it with in-world swears make it more believable to me and make me love his books more than if they included lots ot swearing. I have read books with a lot of swearing, like Mortal Dictata or The Fall of Reach. They, and the rest of the series that they are in, are amazing books. Mortal Dictata especially, that one is among my favorites of all time. Because they deal with the military, the swearing is, of course, extremely prevalent. What I prefer to see though, is when books happen and have their own unique versions of profanity. That shows that the author understands the culture of the book and knows how it effects each aspect of the character's lives.

I would also say that with Mistborn, and Warbreaker Sanderson made the right choice. He never had a sexually explicit scene, which I think was the right move. The rapes and sex are still there, he mentions a bunch how noblemen have mistresses and we bearing a child for the God King is a huge story peice of Warbreaker. By telling about them, he describes the world in the way that it is without making the content too mature for some people. Since he is a Mormon author, writing that way allows him to please both those of his religion and those without. It is true that ignoring that the problem is there would not be realistic, so I think the way that Sanderson handles this is brilliant. Having detailed sex scenes to me, is just fluff and if they are ever in a book I read, I will probably skip them. Brandon takes out a lot of things that we don't need to see in his books. Whether that is sex, eating the same meal over and over, or a long and lengthy period of traveling, he knows when it is appropriate to skip sections, even when he makes mention of them.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sirce Luckwielder

[vineyarddawg]

Just to be clear, this is not an attack, that is not why I am here, I am just expressing my views and opinions of Sanderson.

Sanderson still has swearing, but it is tempered with the other world swears like "Rust and Ruin!" "Sparks!" or "Colors!" Personally, I like that he keeps the swearing minimal. Replacing it with in-world swears make it more believable to me and make me love his books more than if they included lots ot swearing. I have read books with a lot of swearing, like Mortal Dictata or The Fall of Reach. They, and the rest of the series that they are in, are amazing books. Mortal Dictata especially, that one is among my favorites of all time. Because they deal with the military, the swearing is, of course, extremely prevalent. What I prefer to see though, is when books happen and have their own unique versions of profanity. That shows that the author understands the culture of the book and knows how it effects each aspect of the character's lives.

I would also say that with Mistborn, and Warbreaker Sanderson made the right choice. He never had a sexually explicit scene, which I think was the right move. The rapes and sex are still there, he mentions a bunch how noblemen have mistresses and we bearing a child for the God King is a huge story peice of Warbreaker. By telling about them, he describes the world in the way that it is without making the content too mature for some people. Since he is a Mormon author, writing that way allows him to please both those of his religion and those without. It is true that ignoring that the problem is there would not be realistic, so I think the way that Sanderson handles this is brilliant. Having detailed sex scenes to me, is just fluff and if they are ever in a book I read, I will probably skip them. Brandon takes out a lot of things that we don't need to see in his books. Whether that is sex, eating the same meal over and over, or a long and lengthy period of traveling, he knows when it is appropriate to skip sections, even when he makes mention of them.

 

I agree, Sirce.  Specifically, I thought that...

the scene where Susebron and Siri actually have sex for the first time

... was masterfully handled by Brandon.

 

If I wanted lots of graphic sex, violence, and swearing, I'd read the Song of Ice and Fire series.  (Which I have read, so maybe I should say "the next book in the Song of Ice and Fire series."  Oh, wait...   )

[king of nowhere]

I also agree on that. my problem of unrealistic lack of swearing was with lotr, not with sanderson. also the too-idealistic and too black-and-white characters is not an issue i have with sanderson. but some people may have an issue with it.

[hmmm?]

Hello friends I have a problem. So I just finished WOR and I was looking at all of the potential spoilers that I couldn't look at before and I found that something is wrong with my book or something. I was on the wikis about the shards and shareholders and whatnot and I found a bunch of info about "the Letters" and I realized that those don't apere in the epigraphs of my book. Some of them do but others I check the chapter and it says something completely different. so I am completely baffled. PLEASE HELP MEEEEEEE!!!!!!

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

Ruin's influence, perhaps?

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Hello friends I have a problem. So I just finished WOR and I was looking at all of the potential spoilers that I couldn't look at before and I found that something is wrong with my book or something. I was on the wikis about the shards and shareholders and whatnot and I found a bunch of info about "the Letters" and I realized that those don't apere in the epigraphs of my book. Some of them do but others I check the chapter and it says something completely different. so I am completely baffled. PLEASE HELP MEEEEEEE!!!!!!

 

The Letter is in the epigraphs of WoK Part 2. The Response is in the epigraphs of WoR Part 4.